Feedback discussions - Jim Moretz

Steve, The contradictions you try to present in the
foolery section of "crazy stuff in the Bible" is not as clear cut as one
might think. The issue lies in the original language. In Matthew 5:22, the
Greek word rendered "fool" in English is "Raca." Matthew 5:22 is the only
place in the NT that this word is used. There has been great debate over how
to translate this word. So much so that the New International Version uses
the transliteration instead of trying to render what has been a meaningless
translation. What is known about "Raca" is that is was an extreme term of
derision. "Aphron," on the other hand, which is used in Luke 11:40 and 12:20
is a term that refers to an unwillingness to use one's mental faculties to
understand. A cognate of this word is used by Jesus in Mark 7:22 as he is
delineating things which come from the inside and make a person unclean.
"Aphron" suggests that humans have the inherent ability to perceive the
truth. When we refuse to use our "common sense," as it were, we enter into a
state of folly, or foolishness (aphrosune). The use of this term is an
expression of positive thought toward another person. You know they have the
ability, but they refuse to use it. "Raca" dehumanizes and allows people to
be treated in sub-human terms. I have read enough of your site not to
try to "reconvert" you. However, I am responding to your sincere request
that if you have missed the point on an issue you would like to know. You
may still find it unfair of Jesus to use such language, but you cannot
fairly compare "Raca" with anything else. Jesus would never have used that
term.

However, "Young's literal" translates this not as "fool" but as "rebel,"
whilst "raca" seems to be "empty fellow."

Matthew 5:22but I -- I say to you, that every one who is
angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and
whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the
sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the
fire.

However I am not sure that this is correct as mwre definitely is ancient Greek for
"fool" (I checked this with a native Greek friend and a Greek dictionary). This
doesn't spoil your main point though.

Meanwhile many other groups of biblical scholars are quite content to let
it read as "fool"

NIVMatthew 5:22"...anyone who says to his brother 'Raca' is
answerable to the Sanhedrin [theCouncil]. But anyone who says 'You fool'
will be in danger of the hell fire"

Darby Version

Matthew 5:22But *I* say unto you, that every one that is
lightly angry with his brother shall be subject to the judgement; but whosoever
shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be subject to [be called before] the
sanhedrim; but whosoever shall say, Fool, shall be subject to the penalty of the
hell of fire.

Douay-Rheims

Matthew 5:22But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother,
shall be in danger of the judgement. And whosoever shall say to his brother,
Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool,
shall be in danger of hell fire.

This similar treatment by different groups also seems to be happening with
"aphron" (afrwn) which Young's literal
translates as "unthinking" whereas all the others are content with "fool." This
happens with all the other passages you mentioned.

So you have a good point, which I concede although it is unfortunate that
if it is really important then so many scholars have missed it when it seems so
obvious in the Greek. Not that Jesus spoke Greek of course, so I could not be
certain that Greek speakers were not making similar mistakes with Aramaic
words, but I can only conjecture here at the moment. Nevertheless, the oldest
texts are Greek so I understand.

Nevertheless, the Psalmists are translated in Young's Literal as claiming
atheists are "fools" which is the action so condemned in Matthew. So you are not
totally off the hook!

But maybe it is even more complicated....

Out of interest, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm"It
is often stated that Jesus never commented about homosexuality. A casecan be
made that he refers to gays in this verse. On the surface, the verseseems to
condemn individuals who treat others with contempt and call themnames.
Hatred of others is considered here as serious to God as an overt actof
murder. "Raca" is defined in the NIV as an Aramaic term of contempt.
But"raca" "rakha" and similar terms in various Semitic languages also carry
themeaning of effeminacy or weakness - terms frequently used to refer
tohomosexuals. The word "Moros" which is translated as "fool" has a number
ofmeanings, including both sexual aggressor and homosexual
aggressor. Onecould argue that Jesus was condemning homophobia in this
passage; but itwould be a weak case at best, because of the multiplicity of
meanings of thekey words. "

So as for what the passage really means,
as you say, it is debatable. Certainly if it is important it has not been deemed
that scripture can be understood by the uneducated such as "prostitutes and
tax-collectors" who are meant to be entering the kingdom of heaven before us. I
think it is a shame if so much study is required in order to be persuaded that
the bible is saying less cruel and hypocritical things than it seems. Even with
much study this is often still not enough. With your email I received yet
another from an ex-professional Christian. He said "[I] have run the gamut from
Pentecostal to United Methodist minister. I have two Master Degrees from two
seminaries, including Princeton Theological Seminary. It was there that I began
the long journey of deconversion."
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/jeff_kindle.html

It doesn't seem that any amount of study is guaranteed to make the bible
secure enough for belief. There are many similar cases available through my
website, and I am currently compiling a big list of similar ex-professional
Christians. I have books of collected stories from such people (see my
booklinks) and Dan Barker is writing another collection of stories from
ex-clergy. There must be something up if all these people are not convinced by
their scholarship to remain Christians.

However, the most disturbing part of this passage is the part you did not
comment on. It is not the apparent contradiction in the bible that is really
disturbing, but the sentiments involved. You said: << Jesuswould never
have used that term. >> My guess is that this is mostly a statement of
faith in Jesus' perfection. The gospel writers also have Jesus saying "And
whosoever shall say, Thou Fool (or whatever), shall be in danger of hell fire
(whatever that means)" and one can add to this the other passages I have about
Jesus' unforgiving remarks on my page http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html as
well the Gospel accounts of Jesus' references to 'hypocrites', 'blind guides',
'whitewashed tombs', 'snakes', 'broods of vipers' etc. There is further
discussion at http://users.uniserve.com/~tfrisen/Jesuscha.html

"The fact that Jesus, as depicted in the gospels, believed in hell is to me
such a serious religious problem that it was one of the things that finally
broke up my Christianity. What was going on in this book! As a liberally natured
Christian I had never really believed in the existence of hell, or at least I
shied away from hell thoughts, as it did not fit with my idea of a loving God.
Rather I thought all this hell talk must mean something else. But the problem
was that there was so much of it in the NT and the fact that God seemed to allow
the doctrine to be so popular within the church did bother me very much, as did
the fact that if Jesus & St. Paul etc. really didn't believe in literal hell
then the fact that they didn't make it abundantly transparent that they meant
something else was just utterly culpable irresponsibility to me, so abhorrent is
the merest sniff of that doctrine and so dreadful the consequences of Christians
believing it down the ages. "

This is the real problem with the passage you picked me up on. The
contradiction, apparent or otherwise, is useful to show how little the bible can
be taken at face value. Inerrancy research is full of pitfalls, but the real
moral problem is far worse than this. You may have seen me discuss this a little
at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/henry_quon.html which
also contains other material of relevance so I will leave you to refer to
that if you wish (including the meaning of "hell" (geennan)), rather than repeat it here.

Although I have not discussed the subtleties of translation, I think
the important point is well made by highlighting such passages. It is indeed
unfair of Jesus (as reported by the gospel writers) to use such language
especially, if he were divine, in knowing the problems it would cause down the
millennia. This is good evidence against his divinity.

Jesus promised the people of Capernaum that it would be more bearable for
Sodom on the day of judgement than for them.

Sceptics prefer the teachings in Paul's letter to the Ephesians 4:29 'Do
not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful
for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who
listen... Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along
with every form of malice' "

Paul (like Jesus, above) does not always use this advice. This should be
expected from humans.

The point is, so much of the bible is just not humane, let alone divine. In
my opinion, to put so much effort into excusing these writings in the face of so
many truly cruel passages and the horrific suffering in the world is indicative
of an unhealthy relationship. Christians are too often so concerned with
bolstering Christianity that the neglectfulness of their god in making himself
clear, or even kind, is ignored through sometimes massive effort. There is far
worse in the bible than the "foolery" verses I have included which were partly
chosen because they struck me as amusing rather than being completely serious. I
apologise if that seems too frivolous. The later passages I have at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html are
far from frivolous.

As I said in another feedback discussion, trying to build a
relationship

with a silent and neglectful partner, who we excuse for cruel acts and
words,

is not love. Christians jump through hoops for their god and their
beliefs,engineering experiences and emotions whilst the cool reality is
thatthere is silence at the other end. Christians blame themselves if they
feelsomething is going wrong in their Christian lives or their heartfelt
andanxious prayers are not answered, rather than blame or question
theexistence of the silent god who leaves them to suffer the worst
thatlife can throw at them. This is exactly how abused and neglected
wivesbehave regarding their husbands until they either wake up or are
helpedto see the relationship for the non-relationship that it is.

I will reiterate though, that these are just ideas that made me uneasy, and
mostly occurred at the end of my deconversion. Most of the process was one of
reading of psychology, comparative religion, history and thinking through some
knotty problems that lead to my deconversion.

There is a much better way to live, but it takes a lot of courage to dare
to

question ones god through fear of what he might do to you or not give you,
let alone the fear of losing so much investment in Christian life to date and
the psychological attachment one naturally has grown in years of a Christian
environment. However, the fact that so many heavily invested sincere Christians
have deconverted is compelling evidence that there is something very wrong with
Christianity, even without following the resources such as those I have in my
notes http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#notes and
the stories on my site.

Basically, I think you made a valid point about the "fool" quotes, but the
serious problem is one of enormous moral, emotional and psychological import.
Excusing such quotes is interesting and academic, but loving God in the face of
what is often said in the bible and the neglect the Christian god has for the
world is straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel in my opinion. You may
ignore my opinion of course, but this is my website, so I will be frank. On the
rare occasions that I ask questions on Christian websites, I am always very
polite and restrained, as I feel I am a guest. On debate lists and my
website, and when people write to me, I let it all hang out though. I hope that
you don't get upset by any strong words.

I use feedback as an opportunity for amplifying my thoughts and to build up
a FAQ for referring subsequent feedback to. So please don't be taken aback at a
long reply - it is not meant to be personal, but rather written as a
contribution to my site as well as an answer to your email.

Thanks again for writing and alerting me to not being totally fair about
the foolery passages. I hope our exchange has been mutually interesting.

Your propensity for words is amazing. I don't know if I can
return the favor, and I mean that as a compliment. My first impression of
your site was misguided. You have a greater resource pool and a greater
penchant for investigation and assimilation than I would ever have imagined.
You have a great ability to state some classical "problems" with which
Xianity has been faced. (As a side note, I am now using the English X as a
transliteration for the Greek chi which, as I am sure you know, was
shorthand for Christ.) Then again, this may not be a side
note at all. I have always been repelled by those who would say that Xmas
takes Christ out of Christmas. In my estimation, there will be an American
Christian Renaissance. I use the term Renaissance instead of revival for a
multiple reasons. One is sufficient for this discussion at hand. It is
unfortunate, as you mentioned, that the Bible would mandate scholarship in
order to properly understand it. However, any document, such as the
Constitution, The Origin of Species, or Das Capital requires scholarship to
understand it in essence. I am currently working on a
Master's in Biblical Studies at Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas
City, Missouri I have a bachelor's in Xian ministry from Southern Wesleyan
University in Central, South Carolina. My MA program is designed to prepare
a person for Ph.D. work, and, until today, I really thought that is where I
was headed. Over Xmas, I accepted a call to start a new church in the
Raleigh/Durham area of North Carolina. Well, I figured that I could pastor
the new church and eventually pursue my Ph.D. at the University of North
Carolina or at Duke University. However, today I was in my Xian ethics class
and my heart could take no more. We were attempting to define a Xian ethic
in light of some of the issues that you raise. My contention (and I have
just come upon this in the past few weeks) is that Western thought born of
the Greco-Roman Renaissance and weaned on the Enlightenment is unable to
approach the Bible in ways that would effectively answer your
questions. When Jesus told the disciples that he was sending them out
as sheep among wolves, therefore they were to be wise as serpents and
innocent as doves, he sounded far more like Confucius than Plato.
As for why I believe that Jesus would never say Raca.
First, let me say that I don't know what I was saying! I surely was messed
up the other day. You are correct in that the term fool comes from mwre in
Matt 5:22 and that Jesus himself uses the term in 7:26 to describe the
builder who represents anyone who hears Jesus' words and does not do them.
You are also right to be disturbed by this. Anyone who is not disturbed has
not read it. However, as you may assume, it is my belief in the deity of
Christ that reconciles this apparent contradiction.
The reason I would never try to re-convert you is simple. Any conversation
with that goal would take place on the grounds of our conclusions. No
meaningful discussion can occur in the realm of conclusions. We must begin
any discussion in the realm of presuppositions. Here are mine. I presuppose
the ontology of God. I presuppose he is perfect, thus holy, thus good
without capacity for evil. I freely admit these are presuppositions and
cannot be proven. However, the adverse position to these cannot be proven
either and must be stood upon as presuppositions.
Having said that, I return to mwre. Let me bring this into the current
discussion. I cannot legitimately say to you, Steve, "MWRE" because of your
disbelief in God. My New Testament says Blessed are those who mourn for they
will be comforted. I will also use candid words with you. You have proven to
have the capacity for intelligent conversation devoid of melodramatic
emotion. I mourn over your disbelief. I do not condescend you or pity you,
that would still be calling you mwre. I mourn for you. I have no choice. If
Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life, then those without him are dead.
That is the reality of the NT teaching, and possibly one of the ones that
repel you. Am I right? My Xian ethic is to recognize your humanity, your
dignity, and your right to attributive justice. Xianity does not make one
person more human than another. Xianity enables me to no longer view anyone
according to the flesh, but according to the Imago Dei in which they were
created. Organized and historical Xianity has many
problems. That is why Christ died. The solution to them is the resurrection.
I know, I know, more conclusions. I can't help myself. I really believe this
stuff. I have experienced it. Not emotional puffery that I have
manufactured, but internal substantive change wrought by an external force
of purity and grace. I once was truly lost, but now am
found...

I
was going to respond to your email more fully, but I got side-tracked
ontoother things, and since you are obviously a reflective fellow I thought
itwouldn't be appropriate to be at all confrontational. I address almost
allof what you discuss on my site at various places, so I will leave it for
youto chew over if you wish rather than having another debate. Also I
amgetting too many emails at the moment from people who wish to
debateme. I would like to spend more time doing other things, especially
whenmuch of the material raised can already be found through my
site.

The only one thing I would like to say is that I do understand that
youhave fine experiences and I certainly don't mean to deny that you do. In
thecourse of my research - particularly psychology and comparative religion
- Ihave come to see this is a common phenomenon. However, what
Christiansexperience is also experienced by those of other religions and
none. It doesworry me though, that the desire to believe God is loving is so
strongdespite the "troubling verses" and all the terrors of the world. That
is whatI think is an engineered experience, not all the other good stuff I'm
sureyou find. I really haven't lost anything in my inner life since I
leftChristianity and there is no need to mourn me, just as Muslims,
Hindu'sand Hare Krishna's need not morn my lost state (or yours). You can
seeall this in detail on my site. None of us can please all those of
differentviewpoints, so I am already reconciled to always being mourned
bysomebody somewhere.

That's enough! Thanks for being a gentle
correspondent and I wish youhappiness and an interesting time in your
journey, wherever it
maylead.